As you may have heard, Crossroads GPS, the group founded by Karl Rove, has gone up on the air with a new 60-second ad that attacks public employees and the Democrats who support them as greedy thugs. The spot, which is backed by a $750,000 buy, represents a national, high-profile effort to turn around a public opinion war the right seems to be losing as the Wisconsin standoff drags on.

But now the fiscally conservative think tank that the ad itself cites as the source for one of its central claims is accusing Crossroads GPS of misusing the think tank's data. The author of the Cato Institute study cited in the ad tells me the spot "misrepresents" his study's findings.

One of the core claims in the ad, which you can watch below, is that unions and Dems are trying "to protect a system that pays unionized government workers 42 percent more than non-union workers." To back up this claim, the ad cites a Cato Institute study from March 2010 that is generally critical of public sector unions. That study is right here.

But the author of the study, Cato director of tax policy studies Chris Edwards, tells me the ad's claim distorts his data in two key ways. The ad says that unionized government workers get paid 42 percent more than non-unionized workers in general, a charge that seems intended to turn non-unionized workers of all kinds against unionized public employees.

In fact, Edwards points out, Cato's study compared unionized government workers only with non-unionized government workers, not with non-union workers overall, and found the first group doing better. In other words, even if the study's overall thrust is critical of public unions, Cato's actual finding on wages would be likely to persuade workers that unions are a good thing -- if you're unionized, you make more than those in the same sector who are not unionized. Instead, the ad misrepresented the finding.

That's not all. Edwards points out that the ad rips the 42 percent figure out of context, further distorting what his study actually found in another way. The study did claim the 42 percent number, but it went on to state specifically that this difference can be partly explained by "general labor market variations across states," because "states with generally higher wages tend to be more unionized."

The study concluded that once you factor in that variable, public sector unions can be said to increase pay levels by approximately 10 percent -- not 42 percent, as the ad claimed.

"The ad misrepresents the gap between union and non-union government workers, and it appears to misrepresent the 42 percent statistic as if it were between government and private workers," Edwards told me.

Crossroads GPS's willingness to use data supplied by a fiscally conservative think tank in a way that even the study's pro-free market author finds objectionable tells you all you need to know about the lengths some conservatives will go to in order to turn public opinion in this fight to their advantage.

@Greg: "The ad says that unionized government workers get paid 42 percent more than non-unionized workers in general, a charge that seems intended to turn non-unionized workers of all kinds against unionized public employees."

OR...

Perhaps it will motivate non-unionized workers to try to unionize their workplace, and vote in union-friendly legislators in right-to-work states, so that they can get better wages and benefits, too.

She is correct that Congress already has appropriated some spending in future years, but her claim that this money was "hidden" does not have credibility. The money for these programs was clearly described and analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office before the legislation was voted into law.

Here is what this tells me Mr Sargent: the right is adopting the tactics of the left.

This is war, as I have said repeatedly. And in war truth is the first casualty. The left, including you Mr Sargent, have been well, the most charitable term for it is "disingenuous".

Now you want the right to abandon your style? Why should we? If this kind of ad works for your movement, what prevents others from adopting it? Nothing that I can see.

if the left's operating paradigm is "by any means necessary" why would the opposition not take the same position?

Would like us to forget the "700,000 jobs loss" lie that you bruited about just a few short days ago? That report, now called zandinomics by the right, was hotly argued, yet the left repeated its claim as if it were gospel.

What this really says is that the Cato guy, Chris Edwards, has a stronger sense of ethics than Mark Zandi does. That's hardly surprising. Zandi comes off as a liberal and let's just look at the ethical stand of that movement as exhibited by this blog.

How about the "watchdog group" you tried to pass off as objective Mr Sargent? The fact that they were funded by unions didn't make it into your blog entry. Funny how that happened.

The FBI has made an arrest in connection with the attempted bombing along the route of the annual Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade in downtown Spokane.

An FBI source in Washington, D.C., said one man was arrested east of Spokane. Agents, including a bomb expert from Quantico, Va., were preparing to search a house where others associated with the suspect were living, the source said.

Last week, I had the opportunity to appear live on air with Mr. Rove. Being on air with Mr. Rove confirmed in my thinking that he indeed is a master of rhetoric.

As Mr. Sargent implies, Mr. Rove is what some might call a “slick operator”. He made Mr. George W. Bush a governor then a president. Subsequently, during Mr. Bush’s terms in the Oval Office, he remained a chief architect of presidential policies until 2007. Given his current resurgence, it seems reasonable to ask, What exactly were Mr. Rove’s past behaviors, and what were their consequences?

Here are some facts. To begin, President Bush failed to veto even one piece of legislation from a Republican Congress during his first term. The consequences of the Republican, congressional legislation and the Republican ex-President’s behavioral deficit in vetoing were an economic deficit the likes of which never previously had been suffered outside all-out wartime and an economic reversal second only to the Great Depression of the 1930's . . . a deficit against which other recovering Republicans and Mr. Rove now bray.

Then, there was the Republicans’ attack against our constitutional rights while Mr. Bush was referring to the aggressive, Mohammedan religion (See “Repentance” in the Koran.) as a “religion of peace”. The Bush/Rove attack now has expanded from wiretaps without warrants and imprisonment of American citizens denied habeas corpus to Americans having their genitalia groped daily at airports in the name of security.

Militarily, Bush/Rove led us into two, expensive, military conflicts using money borrowed from China . . . the first dwindling into a violence-ridden, disorganized Iraq; and the second continuing with a combat-ridden, chaotic Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Mr. Bush neglected to ask Congress for declarations of war pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.

In this context and after his previous showing, Mr. Rove lately is lecturing Americans on the benefits of returning the G.O.P. to full power. With others, he founded Resurgent Republic in 2009 then, more recently, he added American Crossroads.

One might ask, What is the single, most critical variable controlling Mr. Rove’s behavior? Apparently, not great personal riches but another variable of much greater import to the American people (www.nationonfire.com).

As the video on this website demonstrates, what Mr. Rove has going for him is his being an intelligent, skillful, indefatigable, political operator who knows how to win. What he has going against him would seem to be his past record. The question arises, Will Karl Rove be a valuable asset to the Republican Party or a fatal liability?

On April 20th it will be 97 years since Exxon-Conoco-Mobil-Chevron founder, John D. Rockefeller's mobile death squads he had moved from West Virginia to strike-break to Luddlow, Colorado, began machine-gunning and firebombing to death 19 children, women and men in a coal strikers camp there.

This forgotten history is called the Ludlow Massacre because it hasn't been expunged completely from memory yet.

On that exact same day Rockefeller employee Samuel Bush was working his men 12 hours per day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, work-til-you-drop-dead Buckeye Steel Castings Company.

This is where the Exxon heirs want to "Take the Country Back" to: no pensions, no weekends, no healthcare, no vacations, no sunlight for your entire adult life.

The Koch Tea Party was co-founded by Rupert Murdoch (remember when Glenn Beck met the Americans Against Prosperity for 9-12 project), who worked together before killing Americans with R.I.C.O. Tobacco Frauds.

The Tobacco Companies have been convicted in court of RICO Felony Fraud, but not one person spent even one day in jail.

I don't know what game is being played here, but Cato Institute is founded and directed by the Koch Brothers of Koch Industries, the same guy who co-funded this current anti-union movement and who helped pay for this ad. The Koch Brothers have been pouring money into Karl Rove since they were on the brink of going to prison in 1980, when they gave nearly $1,000,000 to Bush, whose attorney general Ashcroft dropped the prosecution as one of his first acts on the job.

Liam- I am a little confused by your last post. You mention they gave money to Rove when they almost went to prison in 1980 so that they could give Bush $1 million and Ashcroft would let them off the hook. The timing just doesn't work for me, though I'm sure I'm missing something.

Maybe the prosecution began in 1980 and was still working its way through the system by 2000s when they saw an opportunity to "pay for justice"? Just seeking clarification.

That said, there was a time when Socialists were terrorists. No I am not talking about motor-scooter bombs in Saigon, not talking about Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan, I am talking about Obama palling around with terrorists. Now the right wing of American politics has a terrorism problem. It isn't a big problem, but it is there. There is no left wing of American politics.

Shrink, I don't see how white supremacists and violence/terrorism is a right wing problem. There's no evidence for it. That being said, these groups should have their assets forfeited, including bank accounts, land (and those living on it expelled), etc.

Why don't you just do some preliminary research on white supremacist groups? Their websites are all available on the internet. You should go check out a few and their forums.

While some certainly have libertarian/anti-government themes and are vocally opposed to the GOP because they are not extreme enough for their tastes, many of the groups are unmistakably influenced by (or are actively influencing) themes in the mainstream of the Republican Party -- i.e. Obama was born in Kenya, he's a Muslim, he's a Commie, he's a racist (against whites)...

The similarities between the Tea Party Republican mainstream rhetoric and the white supremacist rhetoric is only different in two key ways: 1) the use of the N-word by WS's is not approved of by TPRs and 2) the WS's curse more often. That's pretty much it.

But really, you should go look for yourself. That's the best way to learn.

"I don't see how white supremacists and violence/terrorism is a right wing problem."

Well, you don't live East of Spokane. Joking aside, we'd agree I am sure, I don't see right wing terrorism as an organized problem. I see it as a problem of the crazed, not dissimilar to Laughner, McVeigh, Kaczynski, Cho, the list is endless, any political valence meaningless.

My only serious point was the laughably harmless left, union thugs, the new black panthers...as if. And I am glad of that. If the left ever gets its act together, it would be horrible if it had an armed political force.

I see Leninism as the original sin, the attempt to bring Marx/Engels' abstractions into real life was more deadly than can be imagined. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, each in turn trying to force Lenin's vision from the one pamphlet, What is to be Done.

shrink2 -- my heritage is Ukrainian. my paternal grandfather immigrated between the wars. not all of his family did. most survived the war. contact was lost after Stalin's purges. so we don't know for a fact that's what happened, but it's probably a safe bet.

Hi Ethan! I'll leave the research to you! I was addressing shrinks patently absurd assertion that the right wing had a terrorism problem. There is no evidence for that position. In fact, a few weeks ago, I demonstrated through FBI statistics that not only is there no increase in political violence in the last several years, there's been a significant decrease.

And I fail to see how wanting to use the government to supress and separate peoples based on race is a "libertarian/anti-government"
Idea. Seems the opposite to me. As far back as I can remember, the actual implementation of that policy has always been conducted by Democrats. As for birthers, so what?

And even that Nazi Bill Maher thinks Barry is lying about his religious beliefs.

I am the guy on this blog who people love to deride as "wearing his heart on his sleeve".
It's a pejorative that I actually take as a compliment. :-)

Having said that, it will place my following comment in perspective.

Dude you are an impressive man. We had a long discussion yesterday on empathy but I don't know that even I can do any more the sympathize with you. I can't really imagine the guilt you are carrying around for the loss of your fiance. I can't even attempt to imagine it for too long or I'd become as Mike Myers used to joke Verklempt. (with apologies to Ethan if my Yiddish spelling is poor).

Seriously I can only wish the best and tell you how much I respect the efforts you have made to right your wrong. I can only close with that old saying.."Success is a journey not a destination" and IMHO you are truly one successful dude.

Nazi...tsk tsk you've gone of the deep end a bit there my Marine buddy.

Speaking of which...

Scott...I did consider your suggestion about including Troll in my insults as he may feel left out, but Troll is a former Marine and for some peculiar reason since my days in 'Nam I've always had a soft spot for Marines even though I was in the Army. Troll hope you don't feel left out because I do not insult you with the regularity I do Scott and Q.B. :-)

And considering you impress me as a fiscally responsible if not a full fledged fiscal conservative since the operative word in your sentence is "somewhat" loosely translated..not very...I think you'll agree that this whole drug war is insane. We could at least begin by legalizing pot...yeah we'll have more pot heads but wasn't that the argument for prohibition of alcohol. I suspect we have more alcoholics due to legalization of alcohol...sometimes you just gotta go with the old cost/benefit analysis.

For people who become dictators, peace is impossible, they just can't stop killing. No one really knows why, but maybe it is because the way they got what they got was so brutal, they know they are illegitimate. And so they have to believe anyone, or even everyone would do the same to them if they could, they would have to believe something so misanthropic like that...or they would have to kill themselves immediately.

"Scott...I did consider your suggestion about including Troll in my insults as he may feel left out, but Troll is a former Marine and for some peculiar reason since my days in 'Nam I've always had a soft spot for Marines even though I was in the Army. Troll hope you don't feel left out because I do not insult you with the regularity I do Scott and Q.B. :-)

Semper Fi!

But Nazi...c'mon you gotta know I love Maher."

Hi Ruk! Hope all is well with you! I'll try and survive, though it effect my "street cred"';-)

Just showing Ethan that doubts about Barry's religious beliefs seem to be spread across the political spectrum.

"""Hi Ethan! I'll leave the research to you! I was addressing shrinks patently absurd assertion that the right wing had a terrorism problem"""

I've done it.

Go ahead and look at them.

They SCREAM right wing.

I guess that's what you're afraid of... well, keep sticking your fingers in your ears and head up your rump... just don't whine when we call you ignorant, because you are keeping yourself ignorant of the truth by not finding out the facts for yourself.

I guess that's what you're afraid of... well, keep sticking your fingers in your ears and head up your rump... just don't whine when we call you ignorant, because you are keeping yourself ignorant of the truth by not finding out the facts for yourself."

It's a good thing that Scott Walker has hired Stephen Fitzgerald as head of the State police. Aren't verbal assaults a criminal offense? May be Walker can ask Fitzgerald to raid the homes of those who are getting too vocal. On second thought Stephen Fitzgerald has a little problem regarding police raids.

Sounds like Scott Walker's giving the "SPOILS SYSTEM" a new lease on life.

I'm sure the preponderance of Wisconsin State Troopers are wonderful, dedicated people. Stephen Fitzgerald may also be a nice guy, but given Scott Walker's "phone conversation with the fake "David Koch" regarding "troublemakers" (he clearly stated that the issue was timing, if plan A doesn't work then plan B, introducing troublemakers, was a real option.) he's clearly putting everyone in Wisconsin on edge. He's created a no win situation for Wisconsin.

I can't see how Stephen Fitzgerald, Mark Gottlieb and the State Police can function without serious conflicts of interest. The obvious cronyism regarding Fitzgerald is telling. One negative incident between the State Police and the protesters and all heck will break loose. And if anything serious happens, well, I don't think the State Police or Walker can put that genie back in the bottle.

I think Walker has put the State Police in a no win situation. He's doing them and the Wisconsin citizens a serious disservice.

The police used to be a problem down south. This information makes me skeptical of traveling want to Wisconsin.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.